I like Michael. What’s not to like? He is delightful. Flamingly homosexual (in the right company), good sense of humor, lively conversationalist. He is a must-have invite to your first dinner party and will probably bring some wine.
Anyway, he gave me a shout-out so he must be a genius, am I right? Of course I am.
So, Michael is an evolutionary psychology afficianado with questions.
Why do working class people vote against their own best interests? Why do horses not run free when you open the corral door? Why do caged birds sing?
Lol I jest. Michael points the finger at women: why do women perform clitorectomies on their own female children? Why do women hire and promote men more than other women? Why do women train their male children to be aggressive and their female children submissive? Why did most women in the age of Suffrage oppose their own right to vote? Why is Ruth Hunt?
Women are the authors of their own oppression, and men are the followers, claims Michael. According to Michael Biggs, men have an inalienable evolutionary psychological drive to rape, murder, and dominate women. Women who believe in any potential social or political correction of male violence are collaborators in their own subordination. This male psychological drive to dominance is a testosterone fueled biological mental force unconnected with being a large bodied person with a dick:
“If testosterone has no effect on the brain, then why should it affect athletic ability?” he ponders.
Pass the butter, please.
It’s the male BRAIN winning in sporting events, ladies! The testosteronized brain! Which explains why so many women who take testosterone are competing in men’s sports… oh wait. Hmm. According to Michael Biggs ALL men will always beat ALL women in sports, because black and white thinking is grand :
“In sports, the physical advantages of men are so great that their entry into women’s competitions automatically takes places from females. Women who enter men’s competitions, by contrast, are destined to lose.”
Derp that isn’t actually true. Some women can compete in men’s sports and should be permitted to do so. Can no one comprehend nuance anymore?
Well never mind. The important thing is that women caused whatever shit men do to them, and men can’t help being violent murderous rapists. Time for dessert, everyone! Who wants pie? And coffee!
Oh no, Michael, you were wonderful and we were delighted to have you. We will see you next time, although we probably won’t be holding any dinner parties in the near future (as far as you know). Goodnight buddy. (((hugs)))
(After he leaves) The sad thing is, there is something to discuss in the culture that maybe Michael meant to bring up between all of his women blaming and irredeemably violent male brains.
Has anyone noticed the trend towards presenting women as violent equals to men who are twice their size in films like the Charlies Angels franchise, WonderWoman among others? Although sometimes a female person can blessedly defend themselves against a male, there seems to be a desire to pretend that female vulnerability does not exist. Which runs contrary to every crime statistic on record.
And, has anyone noticed the trend towards forcing women to continually articulate our vulnerability in order to defend our rights, and then shaming us for it? Like supporting the right to female sports. Guys who want to compete in women’s sports (and the women who champion them) say when challenged: “So women are nothing but walking vaginas and are too weak to win?”
Coverage of the “MeToo” movement demands that we create detailed heart-rending emotive victim porn via personal narratives to ostensibly sway disbelievers.
It’s like a continual demand that we testify about our “weakness” juxtaposed with a mainstream fantasy created by men whereby we effortlessly “kick ass” of men twice our size.
Any assertion of our own needs necessitates a graphic testimonial of our own vulnerability to male dominance, which we are then shamed for.
You know what I mean?